Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2002 Public ReportsPOLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager O R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police C� T r1 1 Officer(s) involved in complaint > FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint#01-04 0 DATE: February 5, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #01-04 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's... professional expertise." Section 8-8-7 B.2 While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-7B.2(a), (b), and (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on September 13, 2001. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief's Report was received on December 12, 2001. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-76.1(a), which means the Board reviews the complaint on record without requesting additional information. PCRB 01-04 Page 1 The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: DecenQr 27,r 2001; January 8, 2002; January 14, 2002; January 22, 2002; an,, Feb{u y 5 I G I'' 2002. /.11 u!. r r_;} r1 2: G U FINDINGS OF FACT ffA Ty/ io,ti, 1 ra Late one morning in mid -September, Officer A, while assigned to foot patrol in the downtown, observed the Complainant riding a bicycle west on the north sidewalk of Washington Street. Officer A stopped the Complainant with the intent of issuing a citation for riding a bike on the sidewalk. The Complainant offered a justification for the illegal behavior involving construction on Iowa Avenue and a lack of optional routes for bicycles. Officer A did not respond to these remarks and asked for identification. The Complainant informed Officer A that she did not have identification with her. He then asked for the Complainant's name and other identifying information that he processed through the Emergency Communication Center system which failed to locate the name provided by the complainant. The officer then asked the Complainant if she had lied about her identity and the Complainant acknowledged that she had lied. Officer A then placed the Complainant under arrest for obstruction of an officer, a violation of City Code, Section 8-5-3(c). Officer A called for a transportation car as his car was parked some distance from the location of the arrest. Officer A handcuffed the Complainant. During the process he found it necessary after cuffing one hand to remove the backpack the complainant was wearing. A sandwich the complainant was carrying for lunch was dislodged from the backpack during this process and fell to the ground where it disintegrated. The Complainant alleges Officer A deliberately threw the sandwich to the ground. The officer claims the sandwich fell accidentally as the backpack was being removed from the subject. During the handcuffing process words were exchanged between Officer A and the Complainant. The Complainant alleged the officer screamed his commands. Officer A claims he only spoke in a loud, authoritative voice. The officer patted the Complainant down prior to transport and searched her backpack where appropriate identification was located. This information was used to write the charges against the Complainant. The Complainant indicated that she perceived the arrest process as both unnecessarily long and humiliatingly public. The CAD log revealed that four minutes elapsed between initial contact and I.D. check. One minute after the I.D. was checked Officer A requested a transport car that took approximately 7.5 minutes to arrive. Thirteen minutes after the car driven by Officer B arrived it departed with the Complainant to the jail. During that period the Complainant was placed in the car, the charges were written, and her bike was impounded. A community service officer impounded the bicycle. The Complainant was taken to the Johnson County jail, booked and signed out. Officer B provided the Complainant a ride to the impound facility to retrieve her bicycle. Officer A and the Complainant are in general agreement regarding the events that occurred leading to and during the arrest. They differ greatly, however, PCRB 01-04 Page 2 Fi_F7:�'r. regarding how they interpret these events, particularly in regard to motives and demeanor. 72 FH 12 F' i The Complainant, self -identified as a strong advocate for biking as an @lternative:; means of transportation, perceived riding on the sidewalk as a min",rf�e felt that given the construction downtown and safety considerations, riding on the" sidewalk was defensible and that a warning was an appropriate sanction. She believed the City had an obligation to provide an alternative safe route for cyclists. The Complainant saw Officer A as being unsympathetic to the problem of bikers and overreacting to the complainant's violating behavior and efforts to explain, justify or excuse it. The Complainant felt that because of the 9/11 tragedy two days earlier Officer A should be more sensitive and understanding of variant behavior. The Complainant accused Officer A of being condescending and belittling; engaging in intimidating and oppressive behavior; frisking and searching in "an exaggerated, dramatic fashion" in a highly visible location. The Complainant stated that Officer A screamed commands, called the Complainant a liar and applied the handcuffs very tightly. Officer A's assessment of the Complainant's conduct was that the Complainant was an obvious liar, arrogant towards him and behaved like a spoiled brat. He indicated that the only emotion she showed was anger. Three witnesses to the incident were identified by the Complainant and interviewed but they were not sufficiently close to the principals to hear any of the interactions. One of those witnesses stated both Officer A and the Complainant appeared to be upset. CONCLUSION The Complainant believes that she should not have been arrested for riding on the sidewalk because of the absence of alternative safe routes to her destination and expressed these concerns to the arresting officer who was not responsive and then issued a citation. The Complainant gave false information to the officer whom then arrested her for interference and handcuffed her. The Complainant felt that she had not committed a crime commensurate with Officer A's response. The Complainant alleged the following inappropriate behaviors of Officer A: Allegation 1: The officer engaged in exaggerated enforcement and aggression in handling the case. Officer A denies this behavior. Witnesses do not confirm physical aggression by either the officer or the complainant. The allegation cannot be confirmed in part because what constitutes exaggerated enforcement and verbal aggression is subjective and contingent on context. It is undisputed that Officer A was given false identification providing Officer A with justification for arresting the Complainant. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that the allegation is not confirmed, is supported, and is not PCRB 01-04 Page 3 unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 1 of the complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. 2G12 FI B 12 P 2: 08 Alle ation 2: Officer A was verbally condescending and belittl&d Ithe'- LYi \ complainant. This allegation rests largely on Officer A's response tMh , U I OV4`A Complainant's efforts to justify riding on the sidewalk that include his observation that she seemed to feel that she was above the law and could choose to follow only the laws with which she agreed. The Officer denies that he was condescending or that he belittled the Complainant, and witnesses are not able to confirm the allegation. The Board finds that the Chiefs conclusion that the allegation cannot be confirmed, is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 2 of the complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 3: Officer A screamed at the complainant when he arrested and handcuffed her. The officer acknowledges raising his voice and speaking in an authoritative and commanding manner reflecting training regarding the maintenance of control. Given the emotional context of the situation the complainant may have perceived the elevated tone as a scream. Witnesses are not able to support the allegation. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the allegation that Officer A screamed at the Complainant during the arrest and handcuffing process cannot be confirmed, is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 3 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 4: Officer A slammed the backpack and sandwich to the ground destroying the sandwich. Officer A acknowledges removing the Complainant's backpack during the process of handcuffing her and acknowledges the sandwich fell to the ground when the pack was tipped during removal. The Complainant acknowledges that she did not observe the officer throw the sandwich on the ground nor did the witnesses, although one reported observing the sandwich hit the ground. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that there does not appear to be "evidence to substantiate the allegation that the officer did this with intent or malice", is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 4 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 5: Officer A inappropriately handcuffed the Complainant so tightly as to leave red indentations which persisted for hours after the cuffs were removed. Red marks and indentations may result when a handcuffed individual twists within the cuffs. Since medical attention was not sought it is'not possible to discern whether the marks were beyond what "normally" might occur. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that there is no evidence that the cuffs produced atypical discomfort or injury, is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 5 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 6: Officer A intentionally kept the Complainant on public display for a protracted period of time. Total time from initial contact until arrival at the jail was 26 minutes. Seven and one-half minutes of that was PCRB 01-04 Page 4 transportation car response time which was slower than typical. After the car arrived the remaining minutes were utilized to write two complaints and arrange the impounding of the bicycle. While these may have seemed exceedingly long to the Complainant because of the situation it was not excessive. The Board finds the Chiefs conclusion that "once that car (transport car) arrived the time expended was not inordinate, " is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 6 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 7: Officer A abused the power associated with his position. This allegation seems to encompass the allegation cited above and reflects the Complainant's concern with Officer A's action in citing and arresting her as well as his demeanor while doing so. The demeanor issues have been dealt with in allegations 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the arrest was legally justified by the offenders obstruction and the need to determine proper identification of the Complainant is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 7 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS Although the officer was legally justified in charging the Complainant with obstruction and arresting her for identification purposes, and hence did not violate the law or departmental policy, a more temperate style might have reduced the Complainant's outrage. The Board supports the Chief's decision to counsel Officer A in regard to the intent of the law and other approaches to effective enforcement of the City's ordinance in the downtown area. N 1-' n �7 PCRB 01-04 Page 5 -D; s }ri b �.� e rC ct--r` --N) 2 I-Y�n : POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council -" Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager u, R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #01-05 DATE: February 26, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #01-05 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's ... professional expertise." Section 8-8-7 B.2 While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-7B.2(a), (b), and (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on September 26, 2001. As required by section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief's Report was received on December 21, 2001. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B.1(b), interview/meet with complainant and Section 8-8- 7B.1(e), which means performance by Board of its own additional investigation. The Board met on December 27, 2001, January 8, 2002, January 22, 2002, PCRB 01-05 Page I February 5, 2002, and February 26, 2002 to consider the complaint. The Board reviewed case reports, summaries of interviews with the Complainant and a witness, and a transcript of the 911 call. In addition, representatives of the Board interviewed the Complainant, and a witness. A Name -Clearing Hearing was scheduled to be held on February 26, 2002. The officer signed a waiver and the hearing was not held. J FINDINGS OF FACTCJ The Iowa City Police Department received a 911 call from the Complaina_rd early Y i morning in August 2001. She was excited and nervous, and reported that-' someone was attempting to gain entry to her residence, an upper -floor J.G? apartment, by pounding on her door. The Complainant and the other pers i on the premises described the action as "body -slamming" against the door. The Complainant also heard sounds that resembled that of a person vomiting or "dry - heaving", and "growling" sounds. The other person in the residence placed his body against the inside of the door in an attempt to prevent forcible entry, while the Complainant was making the 911 call. After the call was completed, but prior to arrival of police officers, the sounds ceased. Officer A arrived and checked the perimeter of the building on the ground floor and the second floor landing. Officer A then gathered information from the Complainant and the other person in the apartment about the incident, and during this process did not note any apparent damage to the door. Officer A then went downstairs to check with another officer who had arrived at the scene, and who had stopped a suspect near the building. The two officers confirmed that the suspect was the person who had attempted to gain entry to the apartment. Officer A returned to the apartment and informed the Complainant that the other officer was going to give the suspect a ride home because he was intoxicated. There then ensued a conversation between the Complainant and Officer A about the proper disposition of the matter. The Complainant wanted the suspect arrested. Officer A indicated that according to standard operating procedure, one of the methods of dealing with such a case was to take the intoxicated person home. During the conversation, apparently, the matter of crowding at the County Jail came up as a reason for not arresting the intoxicated person. The remainder of the incident involved Officer A and the Complainant disagreeing over the resolution of the matter, the procedures used, and the demeanor of Officer A. Officer A then contacted the other officer involved and told him that the Complainant was being "vindictive" and the intoxicated person was to be arrested and taken to jail. The Complainant disputed the use of the word "vindictive" and felt that she was becoming an accused person, rather than the victim. She objected to the use of the word as unprofessional, unsympathetic, and inconsiderate. Officer A then arrested the intoxicated person, and informed the complainant that the intoxicated person would be taken to jail. PCRB 01-05 Page 2 CONCLUSION This complaint focuses on two issues: (1) Officer A's initial decision not to arrest an intoxicated person after the person had attempted forcibly to enter a residence, was improper; (2) Officer A's use of the word "vindictive" to describe the Complainant's wish that the person be arrested, was inappropriate. Allegation 1: Police officers are provided broad discretion whether or not an arrest should be made, and factors to be considered are clearly described in General Order 99-11, Arrests. Officer A's initial decision to remove the intoxicated subject from the scene by transporting him home was consistent with this policy. The Board finds that the Chiefs conclusion that Officer A acted in accordance with policy is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2: The Board believes that use of the term "vindictive" by Officer A represented a casual and dismissive demeanor and attitude that the Complainant perceived as demeaning and insensitive. Standard Operating Guideline 01-11, Victim/Witness Assistance, clearly states that "...members of the department shall treat all victims and witnesses with dignity and assist victims in obtaining available services...." and "Regardless of the seriousness, or violation, the victim/witness deserves support and fair treatment." In their interview with representatives of the Board, the Complainant and witness both denied that Officer A apologized for his use of the word "vindictive" or for his demeanor. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that use of the word "vindictive" was inappropriate is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 is SUSTAINED. COMMENTS The Police Citizens Review Board could not find a General Order or Standard Operating Guideline that specifically addresses public intoxication. We recommend that the Chief consider whether such a written policy should be created to provide clearer guidance for officers in the handling and disposition of such incidents.